Bosque CO2 GESTIÓN “La Carballeda”

Integrity

The monitoring report (2022) indicates no material findings and no corrective actions required, which is a positive signal for process compliance. However, the extracted record does not provide the baseline approach, any additionality test, leakage deduction/justification, or permanence risk management (such as a buffer pool), which are central to removal integrity. Reversal events and reversal monitoring outcomes were also not found in the extracted record, leaving permanence performance unassessable.

Transparency

The evidence set includes a PDD, validation report, and a monitoring report dated 2022-02-22, suggesting some level of public documentation. Still, the extracted record lacks the monitoring period and any quantified claimed or verified removals, preventing an external reader from reproducing or even sanity-checking the reported climate benefit. The VVB name is also not found in the extracted record, reducing traceability of independent assurance.

Claim Safety

Because neither claimed nor verified removal totals are found in the extracted record, it is not possible to check whether issuance aligns with monitored performance, elevating over-crediting and greenwashing risk. Baseline and leakage approaches are also not found in the extracted record, which are common drivers of over-crediting in land-based removals. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not found in the extracted record, so the risk of inappropriate eligibility-related claims cannot be screened.

Documentation

Documentation coverage is moderate: the extracted record references three key document types (PDD, validation report, monitoring report) and extraction confidence is medium rather than low. However, many critical fields that should be present in these documents (baseline method, additionality test, monitoring period, quantified results, leakage treatment, permanence provisions, and VVB identity) were not found in the extracted record. The absence of these core data points materially limits auditability from the extracted dataset.

Overall

No contradictions were identified in the extracted record, so scores are driven primarily by evidence gaps rather than conflicting statements. Given the missing baseline/additionality/leakage/permanence details and the absence of quantified claimed and verified removals, the project scores low on integrity and claim safety despite having a basic document set. Note: if documentation were to score below 3.0, transparency would be capped by the gate rule; and if integrity were below 4.0, the overall score would be capped at 6.0 under the integrity gate.